Delhi High Court stays release of Udaipur Files movie, directs Centre to take final call on certification

The Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed the release of movie 'Udaipur Files' till the Central government takes a decision on its contents [Maulana Arshad Madani Vs Union Of India & Ors]

The order was passed on a batch of three petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani seeking a ban on the movie based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur, for vilifying Muslims.

The movie was slated to be released on July 11, Friday.

The Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal after a detailed hearing ordered the Central government to exercise its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act to examine the movie.

The Court ruled the power can be exercised by the Central government suo motu or on an application moved by an aggrieved person against a film certificate. In this case, it noted that the petitioners had not taken recourse to the remedy.

Though the Bench said it was not impermissible for Court to intervene in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, it added that the petitioners ought to approach the Central government first.

"Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to approach the Central government within two days and in case the petitioners approach the Central government, he may also make a prayer for interim measures. Once the petitioner approaches the Central government with a revision petition, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of one week after giving opportunity to the producer," it ordered.

The Court also directed that the prayer for interim relief against the movie shall also be considered.

In the meantime, the release of the movie shall remain stayed, the Bench directed.

"Since we are relegating the petitioner to invoke the remedy of revision under Section 6 of the Act, we provide that ... there shall be stay on release of film," it ordered.

The CBFC on Wednesday had told the Court that certain offending portions in the movie have been removed. The Court had then directed the producer to arrange a screening of the movie and the trailer for the counsel appearing in the matter - Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Madani and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma for CBFC.

Today, Sibal said he was appalled after watching the movie.

"What I have seen yesterday is horrific," he said.

During the hearing, the Court suggested that the petitioners can approach the Central government. However, Sibal responded that the movie is scheduled to be released on Friday.

"Today, we are running against time," he added.

Sibal also apprised the Court that CBFC itself had issued show cause notice to the moviemaker after release of the trailer on June 26, stating that they were not complying with the relevant rules.

The counsel for the movie producer said the trailer has since been taken down. However, Sibal said the trailer was still online. The senior counsel also submitted that he had discovered thematic content of the movie only after seeing the movie.

"Whole film is targeted against the community. Seeing is believing. The lordships will have to decide whether the film can be shown in the context of what is happening in the country," he added.

After going through the show cause notice, the Court asked the CBFC whether penal action had been taken for violating the rules in respect of the trailer.

"So far as circulation of that portion on social media... there is direction to take down. The other consequences is penal action, what did you do about that in the wake of admission," the Court asked as it pointed to the rules in question.

In response, ASG Sharma said the trailers would not come within those rules as per a decision of the Bombay High Court.

"That is digital media," he added, while stating that the CBFC does not deal with online content.

However, the Court questioned how the CBFC had then issued show cause notice. "But it was exhibited, not kept in wardrobe," it remarked, adding that exhibition of uncertified portions of film invites penal action.

Sharma then said the trailer could have been shown on mainstream platforms. He said the show cause notice was also in accordance with the Bombay High Court ruling.

The Court then remarked,

"Either you follow Bombay High Court or do not. The notice has to be taken to logical conclusion."

Stating that the film was certified on June 20, Sharma argued that courts have previously held that High Court should loath to injunct a movie certified by the experts of the CBFC.

"The trailer carried [some] parts which was excised. The jurisdiction which we had, so we issued show cause notice," he added.

The Court then asked that since the filmmaker itself had admitted to the infraction, the action would have to be taken. Sharma conceded that law would have to take its course. The Court then said it would record his statement in this regard.

On the challenge against the movie release, Sharma argued that the petitioners can approach the Central government under Section 5E of the Cinematograph Act for suspension or revocation of the certificate.

However, the Court asked whether this option was available to a viewer, adding that the provision pertains only to exhibition. "5E argument is not perhaps available," it said.

Sharma then referred to Section 6 which grants revisional powers to Central government against film certification by CBFC. He also said that petitioners had been late in approaching the Court.

"On 20th June film was certified. On 1st July first trailer came out. Petition was filed on 5th July. Listed on 9th. If there is so much urgency then why should someone put pressure on Court," he said.

However, the Court on a lighter note remarked,

"We are not pressured, don't worry!"

Sharma also argued that Supreme Court has ruled that film certification is the job of experts.

"Otherwise any person can come rushing under Article 226," he added.

He further submitted that 55 excisions were ordered in the movie, showing application of mind by the CBFC.

In particular, he referred to removal of portions pertaining to mention of Deoband and a television debate involving Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Nupur Sharma. However, Sibal interjected stating that there have been modifications only.

"Kindly see the lengths to which the Board has gone... even 'IB' has been removed," Sharma said as he continued his submissions on excisions made in the movie.

Sharma claimed that the movie is not community-specific but crime-specific. He also tried to refer to some incident in Karachi, while buttressing his argument about film showing the role of Pakistan in disrupting harmony in India.

"Yesterday on streets of Karachi, the people on whom ... Operation Sindoor [we] have come together," Sharma said.

The Court questioned what that incident had to do with the case. On use of 'Hafiz' in the movie, Sharma said it referred to Lashkar-e-Taiba co-founder Hafiz Saeed.

However, the Court said 'Hafiz' can refer to anyone and would depend on perception of a person.

"Somebody's mind goes to that person in foreign country, somebody's mind will go to someone else," it added.

In response, Sharma said the movie refers to Hafiz Saeed only.

"It is a pointer to that man in Pakistan. It is a crime film cautioning people here that harm is engineered somewhere else and we should live in peace. That is the theme," the ASG said.

Advocate Shreeyash U Lalit, representing the moviemakers, while beginning his arguments, referred to the chargesheet filed by National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Teli's murder case.

However, the Court said a movie is combination of fact and fiction and that chargesheet is always subject to trial.

"You cannot defend a movie on the basis of some material collected during the course of investigation," it remarked.

Lalit then argued that,

"It is a typical India- Pakistan movie, nothing else."

He added that Sibal has taken dialogues out of context after watching the movie.

"There are several characters at play, who are Muslim, India... this not the case where everyone has been vilified. The plot is entirely about external influence," the counsel said.

The Court was also informed 1800 theaters have been booked for screening of the movie and one Lakh tickets have been sold.

At this, the Court said that the magnitude would not determine whether to stay the movie release or not.

"That magnitude can go both ways," it added.

In response to the arguments of CBFC and the moviemaker, Sibal said the movie was aimed at the vilification of the entire community. On the argument that the petitioners can approach the Central government, Sibal said the movie would be released by then.

"Dismiss the petition but have a look at the film. It is the most vicious," he submitted.

Sibal also said the movie is full of hate speech and portrays the Muslim community as ills of society. He also asked the Court to read the background of the movie producer as reported by the Indian Express.

"This movie is visceral hate, nothing short of that ... Several scenes having no bearing whatsoever with the basic plot of the movie and are incldemonizingthe objective of demonising Muslims in every possible aspect," Sibal added.

"This is not right for the country. This is not art. This is cinematic vandalism," Sibal said in conclusion.

Madani's plea seeks directions for prohibiting the release, distribution, broadcast or public exhibition of the movie being distributed by Reliance and to remove the trailer of the movie from all digital and social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and X.

As per the petition, the trailer of the movie portrays that the murder of Teli was committed with the complicity of the leaders of the Muslim community. Such a narrative could create a serious wedge between Hindus and Muslims, the plea has argued.

“The trailer seeks to portray an entire community in a prejudicial manner thereby violating the right to live with dignity for the members of the community. The movie is of highly provocative nature, capable of creating a wedge between the communities which may cause serious disturbance to public peace and public order across the country,” it adds.

Pertinently, the High Court today rejected Central government's objection to defer the hearing of the case in view of "pendency" of a similar matter before the Supreme Court. The Court took note of news reports stating that a mentioning to urgent list the matter had been denied and that no order had been passed for releasing the movie.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy with advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Ibad Mushtaq also appeared for the petitioners.